Abstract
Despite tremendous advances in the treatment and management of stroke, restoring motor and functional outcomes after stroke continues to be a major clinical challenge. Given the wide range of approaches used in motor rehabilitation, several commentaries have highlighted the lack of a clear scientific premise for different interventions as one critical factor that has led to suboptimal study outcomes. To examine this issue in greater detail, we conducted a thematic analysis of randomized controlled trials in stroke rehabilitation over a 2-year period from 2019-2020. Our results revealed three primary findings: (i) most studies did not provide an explicit rationale for why the treatment would be expected to work, (ii) there was not a close correspondence between the active ingredients mentioned versus the active ingredients measured in the study, and (iii) multimodal approaches that involved more than one therapeutic approach tended to be combined in an ad-hoc fashion, indicating the lack of a targeted approach. These results highlight the need for strengthening cross-disciplinary connections between basic science and clinical studies, and the need for structured development and testing of therapeutic approaches to find more effective treatment interventions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by NIH grant XXX and NSF grant XXX
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a review article and does not require IRB approval
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data related to this article has been posted as Supplementary material
